Should climate change deniers be disenfranchised?

[Choronzon]

What purpose would disenfranchising them accomplish, anyway? Do you anticipate a sudden rise in Green Party votes to avoid being denied the right to vote or something?

The purpose would be preventing people who will only make the problem worse from being elected. Maybe then we could get some people serious about fixing the problem into power.

[Free South Califas]

This sort of voter-focused attack is the wrong way to go about defeating the forces of medieval irrationality. Rather, profit interests should no longer be allowed to dominate politics (in the electoral or legislative stage). The problem lies not with voters--and by the way, might I add, drastically expanding the electorate would probably do more good--but with political actors who have a lot more sway than us. Without support from profiteers, politicians would have no incentive to ignore climate science; indeed, they would do so at their electoral peril, considering how much further left most Americans, at least, are than the current political parties with power.

[Raeyh]

What purpose would disenfranchising them accomplish, anyway? Do you anticipate a sudden rise in Green Party votes to avoid being denied the right to vote or something?

The purpose would be preventing people who will only make the problem worse from being elected. Maybe then we could get some people serious about fixing the problem into power.

It's still going to be the same candidates, just less people will be able to vote for them.

[Objectiveland]

What purpose would disenfranchising them accomplish, anyway? Do you anticipate a sudden rise in Green Party votes to avoid being denied the right to vote or something?

The purpose would be preventing people who will only make the problem worse from being elected. Maybe then we could get some people serious about fixing the problem into power.

So as long as you agree with them they should be able vote. Interesting. If everyone agrees why vote?

[Choronzon]

The problem lies not with voters

Thats awfully optimistic of you.


I disagree.

[Divair]

This sort of voter-focused attack is the wrong way to go about defeating the forces of medieval irrationality. Rather, profit interests should no longer be allowed to dominate politics (in the electoral or legislative stage). The problem lies not with voters--and by the way, might I add, drastically expanding the electorate would probably do more good--but with political actors who have a lot more sway than us. Without support from profiteers, politicians would have no incentive to ignore climate science; indeed, they would do so at their electoral peril, considering how much further left most Americans, at least, are than the current political parties with power.

So ban oil & coal lobbying? Or do you wish to propose another course of action?

[Transmaris]

And this could easily be used as an argument for banning non-christians from voting. No, we shouldn't disenfranchise people for their beliefs

+1

[Choronzon]

And this could easily be used as an argument for banning non-christians from voting. No, we shouldn't disenfranchise people for their beliefs

+1

Why do people think that this fallacious statement is somehow the ultimate argument against the OP?

[Free South Califas]

This sort of voter-focused attack is the wrong way to go about defeating the forces of medieval irrationality. Rather, profit interests should no longer be allowed to dominate politics (in the electoral or legislative stage). The problem lies not with voters--and by the way, might I add, drastically expanding the electorate would probably do more good--but with political actors who have a lot more sway than us. Without support from profiteers, politicians would have no incentive to ignore climate science; indeed, they would do so at their electoral peril, considering how much further left most Americans, at least, are than the current political parties with power.

So ban oil & coal lobbying? Or do you wish to propose another course of action?

That's a start, although I would say for-profit companies lobbying in general. There's little need for me to map out the strategy by hand, though - lots of other people have laid out useful policy prescriptions to this end. My point is that solutions to this particular problem are (1) interwoven into other problems of corporate & financial domination in politics and (2) better solved by eroding the overgrown privileges of for-profit entities than through direct disenfranchisement of individual voters. Besides, an ideology test for voting is little better than a loyalty oath, and easier to abuse. JMHO.

[Inyourfaceistan]

The purpose would be preventing people who will only make the problem worse from being elected. Maybe then we could get some people serious about fixing the problem into power.

So as long as you agree with them they should be able vote. Interesting. If everyone agrees why vote?

It's about them granting power to "society" *cough*state*cough* to be able to remove the ability to participate in governance precisely BECAUSE they disagree with them. It's basically totalitarianism dressed up with the same cliche' "greater good of society" bullshit.

[Eleutheria]

We shouldn't disenfranchise objectiveland for being a terrible objectivist

Indeed, I'm a libertarian and fairly close to liking Ayn Rand (it was the hair that put me off her in the end, not her abhorrent betrayal of her principles in her latter life btw )

I feel compelled to point out on behalf of my bastardised objectivist ideological cousins that they do, as a whole, have very intelligent proponents who (unlike Objectiveland) use very intelligent arguments instead of just copying and pasting dogma from http://aynrandlexicon.com/ .

As for Climate Change deniers being disenfranchised, I am sure that if you truly have the better argument it would be far better to just debate with them. Al Gore did it, and he got the popular vote. It isn't unthinkable that another man (or woman) at another time could reach the same conclusion and win the presidency.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither." Undermining our democracy for the sake of the climate is an understandable wish, but what will the state decide constitutes a national emergency next? What other liberties will it remove? What other groups will it disenfranchise?

We call certain rights immutable for a reason.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

We shouldn't disenfranchise objectiveland for being a terrible objectivist

Indeed, I'm a libertarian and fairly close to liking Ayn Rand (it was the hair that put me off her in the end, not her abhorrent betrayal of her principles in her latter life btw )

I feel compelled to point out on behalf of my bastardised objectivist ideological cousins that they do, as a whole, have very intelligent proponents who (unlike Objectiveland) use very intelligent arguments instead of just copying and pasting dogma from http://aynrandlexicon.com/ .

As for Climate Change deniers being disenfranchised, I am sure that if you truly have the better argument it would be far better to just debate with them. Al Gore did it, and he got the popular vote. It isn't unthinkable that another man (or woman) at another time could reach the same conclusion and win the presidency.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither." Undermining our democracy for the sake of the climate is an understandable wish, but what will the state decide constitutes a national emergency next? What other liberties will it remove? What other groups will it disenfranchise?

We call certain rights immutable for a reason.

We restrict rights all the time in those cases where their exercise harms or limits the freedoms of others--limiting freedom of speech in the case of death threats, or freedom of assembly in the case of murder contracts.

And that's assuming that "voting" is a right, that "electoral democracy" is real democracy, etc.--all of which I positively reject anyway.

[Free South Califas]

Interesting how it is apparently an "essential liberty" to choose your master, but not to breathe clean air, drink clean water, sustain your family for the foreseeable future, etc.

[Eleutheria]

Indeed, I'm a libertarian and fairly close to liking Ayn Rand (it was the hair that put me off her in the end, not her abhorrent betrayal of her principles in her latter life btw )

I feel compelled to point out on behalf of my bastardised objectivist ideological cousins that they do, as a whole, have very intelligent proponents who (unlike Objectiveland) use very intelligent arguments instead of just copying and pasting dogma from http://aynrandlexicon.com/ .

As for Climate Change deniers being disenfranchised, I am sure that if you truly have the better argument it would be far better to just debate with them. Al Gore did it, and he got the popular vote. It isn't unthinkable that another man (or woman) at another time could reach the same conclusion and win the presidency.

In the words of Benjamin Franklin "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither." Undermining our democracy for the sake of the climate is an understandable wish, but what will the state decide constitutes a national emergency next? What other liberties will it remove? What other groups will it disenfranchise?

We call certain rights immutable for a reason.

We restrict rights all the time in those cases where their exercise harms or limits the freedoms of others--limiting freedom of speech in the case of death threats, or freedom of assembly in the case of murder contracts.

And that's assuming that "voting" is a right, that "electoral democracy" is real democracy, etc.--all of which I positively reject anyway.

Hey, I've never believed in democracy-you're talking to a benevolent autocrat here So don't make strawmen at me.

I was merely saying that it is a very bad precedent for a society to disregard its most basic and primal liberties, liberties that the society was founded on-for the sake of expediency. It can and will happen again, and don't think that it will always be on the side of the New York Times reading Boston Liberals, it will mean that muslims will be disenfranchised, it will mean that homosexuals will be marginalised.

Just look at the Patriot Act. If you need evidence that the state will abuse our supposedly immutable rights in a time of "emergency" for their own gain-then that is it.

[Choronzon]

Interesting how it is apparently an "essential liberty" to choose your master, but not to breathe clean air, drink clean water, sustain your family for the foreseeable future, etc.

The way some people are reacting you'd think that disenfranchisement was the worst thing that could happen to someone, ever.

As if the act of voting is what makes you free, and without it you're inherently unfree.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Interesting how it is apparently an "essential liberty" to choose your master, but not to breathe clean air, drink clean water, sustain your family for the foreseeable future, etc.

It's a relic of the Enlightenment. Formal liberty over substantial liberty--defensible during the Enlightenment when there simply was not the knowledge that there is today of how societies work, but nowadays intellectually untenable.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

I was merely saying that it is a very bad precedent for a society to disregard its most basic and primal liberties, liberties that the society was founded on-for the sake of expediency.

Exactly the sort of decontextualized Enlightenment-revivalism I was just talking about.

You seem to see liberty as a static and reified set of policy prescriptions, and think that those specific policy prescriptions are themselves the essence, the very principle, of liberty itself, when in fact those policy prescriptions are merely but a means to the end of individual liberty, and that real liberty means rethinking and revising the details of implementation (the policies put in place) when advancements in our knowledge of how society works demonstrate that the old policies were ineffective or an outright hindrance to individual liberty.

We're seeing that now with electoral "democracy".

[Free South Califas]

If the issue is about losing liberties the society is founded upon, I wouldn't worry about that in the USA. It's already illegal to distribute smallpox blankets, so what's the point?

[Costa Alegria]

Wind farms are pretty good, generally speaking, but good luck finding a place to build them without the locals bursting an artery, even if local conditions are suitable.

Wind farms are only good for solving local power problems.

Electric cars are probably the closest we've got to a commercially viable product, but as long as they're powered by coal plants, they're not much of an improvement in terms of avoiding emissions.

They've been commercuially viable products for nearly a century now. Mainstream manufacturers just haven't invested enough in electric (or alternative fuel vehicles altogether) for them to actually be sold on as an affordable product to the customer simply because there hasn't been demand for them.

And the power sources are the reason why countries should invest more in nuclear power. Yes, there have been problems with them in the past, but these have been down to location and design flaws.

Yeah, but that's not the point - that fringe is the only significant group who have any interest in the settlements going ahead. Most of the rest of the population feels there are bigger things to worry about. But this 10% is largely responsible for keeping Netanyahu's government in power, so the government has to continue building the settlements.

Not really. If Netanyahu relied purely on 10% of the vote, he wouldn't be in power. Pure and simple. Israelis only vote for him because he will veto any Palestinian bid for statehood and takes a hard line against Iran. He only has to deliver a rant against Iran for his popularity to rise again. Many Israelis dislike his stance on settlements and lack of action with regards to standards of living, but fully support him on his stance about Palestine and Iran. All he needs to do is play these cards correctly and constantly and he will have the support to stay in power for another term.

[Costa Alegria]

As if the act of voting is what makes you free, and without it you're inherently unfree.

It is one of the many aspects of what makes us "free". Infringe upon it and you might as well infringe upon others.

It is interesting to note that these people would advocate for the rights of people that they support but not ones they don't.

[Eleutheria]

I was merely saying that it is a very bad precedent for a society to disregard its most basic and primal liberties, liberties that the society was founded on-for the sake of expediency.

Exactly the sort of decontextualized Enlightenment-revivalism I was just talking about.

You seem to see liberty as a static and reified set of policy prescriptions, and think that those specific policy prescriptions are themselves the essence, the very principle, of liberty itself, when in fact those policy prescriptions are merely but a means to the end of individual liberty, and that real liberty means rethinking and revising the details of implementation (the policies put in place) when advancements in our knowledge of how society works demonstrate that the old policies were ineffective or an outright hindrance to individual liberty.

We're seeing that now with electoral "democracy".

An electoral democracy whose principles (i.e. voting, or at any rate short terms), I disagree with, so surely I cannot be so one-dimensional a creature.

I absolutely understand that policies which have served us well in the past as a means of ensuring man's freedom are not necessarily the policies that will serve us best in the future.

But I still maintain that being so myopic as to erode principles on which a nation is maintained and to trust to state not to abuse that new found power is being incredibly naive. I cite the Patriot Act as an example of that.

[Costa Alegria]

The purpose would be preventing people who will only make the problem worse from being elected.

By disenfranchising a minority? Wouldn't that be like saying all people that think the Earth is flat shouldn't be able to vote?

[Eleutheria]

I'd also say, Bluth, that whether you believe in an electoral democracy or not, it makes no sense whatsoever to compromise between the two positions (elections and whatever proletarian dictatorship or benign autocracy it is that you advocate) and have some people voting (i.e. people who agree with you) and others not. Stick to one position or the other, that middle-ground grants the state far too much power, which it will undoubtedly abuse.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

I absolutely understand that policies which have served us well in the past as a means of ensuring man's freedom are not necessarily the policies that will serve us best in the future.

Don't have time to respond to the rest right now, but let me just clear this up.

I'm not saying "policies that worked in the past will not necessarily work now." I'm saying that those policies didn't even really work in the past, that people weren't really free even then, but that nevertheless because of the state of knowledge of how societies worked at that time no one realized that they didn't work, no one realized that people weren't really free, so continuing to promote them at that time would have been intellectually defensible at that time.

[Vitaphone Racing]

If a government has already decided to take one particular course of action regardless of public opinion, then why is removing those with dissenting views from the political system a necessity?

Someone will also have to explain to me why having a political system made up only of those who accept anthropogenic global warming is crucial to the survival of humanity.